ICPSRMetadata record for Deterrent Effect of Curfew Enforcement: Operation Nightwatch in St. Louis, 2003-2005ICPSR
ICPSR metadata records are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial
3.0 United States License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/).
Deterrent Effect of Curfew Enforcement: Operation Nightwatch in St. Louis, 2003-2005Urban, Lynn S.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social ResearchICPSR2005-11-144302doi://10.3886/ICPSR04302.v1

This study was conducted between December 2003 and January
2005, to determine if the curfew check program in St. Louis, Missouri,
known as Nightwatch, was meeting its stated goals of reducing
recidivism and victimization among juvenile offenders. The study was
conducted using a pretest and two post-tests on an experimental group
and a comparison group. The pretest (Time 1) was given to 118
juveniles. The first post-test (Time 2) was completed by 78 juveniles
and the second post-test (Time 3) was completed by 37 juveniles. The
tests were designed to measure the respondents' perceptions of
certainty of punishment, as well as to measure their out of home
activities. Important variables included in the study are levels of
parental supervision, self-reported behaviors of the juvenile
respondent, perceived severity of punishments, measures of
impulsiveness, and self-reported victimization of the respondent, as
well as variables related to the Nightwatch program, including the
number of visits, sanctions or rewards received by the respondent.

UniverseScheme04302Organization04302_12004-IJ-CX-0008

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
curfew check program in St. Louis, Missouri, known as Nightwatch, by
determining whether the program meets its stated goals of reducing
recidivism and victimization, as well as the mechanism by which this
is accomplished. This research sought to assess how the use of
graduated sanctioning affects a juvenile's perceptions of the
certainty and severity of punishment, and whether different formal
punishments invoke different perceptions.

To evaluate the impact of Nightwatch on recidivism
and victimization, the study administered a pretest and two post-tests
to an experimental group and a comparison group between December 2003
and January 2005. The experimental group of 55 juveniles received
Nightwatch visits according to their court orders issued by the
judge. The comparison group of 24 juveniles did not receive Nightwatch
visits, and there are several reasons why this occurred, including
residing outside the city, participating in the Victim/Offender
Mediation (VOM) program, and being assigned to the program after the
Time 2 survey was administered. Juveniles were given a pretest prior
to their assignment to Nightwatch in order to establish a basis for
their perceptions of certainty of punishment, as well as to measure
their out-of-home activities. Informed consent was obtained from 132
study eligible juveniles. The pretests (Time 1) were administered to
118 juveniles (14 juveniles declined to participate in the study after
giving informed consent) as soon as possible after informed consent
was obtained, with all pretests completed within four days of
obtaining it. With the exception of five juveniles who were
interviewed at the VOM office, all juveniles were given the pretest
while in the detention center. Two post-tests (Time 2 and Time 3) were
administered, with a target interval of roughly two months, to measure
any changes in perceptions or opportunities over time. At Time 2, 78
juveniles completed surveys. At Time 3, 37 juveniles completed
surveys. Post-testing for juveniles under official court supervision
occurred at variable points, and took advantage of times when the
juvenile was required to come to the court on official business. This
two-month post-test target coincides with the court's policy that
every juvenile on official court supervision have a review hearing
every 60 days. Post-testing for the VOM members of the comparison
group was slightly different, since juveniles participating in VOM are
not required to attend status conferences, and there is no
adjudication. Instead, VOM staff agreed to arrange extra office
visits as needed to complete post-tests.

Several Likert-type scales were used.The participant population was a purposive sample of
juvenile offenders recently referred to the court for official
delinquency with no prior participation in the Nightwatch
program. Court records were examined daily during the study period,
and juveniles admitted to the detention center were screened for
inclusion in the study. Time 1 surveys were administered to 118
juveniles, which was roughly a 10 percent sampling of juvenile court
referrals. Juveniles included in this study fell into one of three
groups: those on official court supervision that received Nightwatch
visits, those on official court supervision that did not receive
Nightwatch visits, and those who participated in Victim/Offender
Mediation (VOM). Juveniles in the first group constituted the
experimental group (55 individuals), while those in the remaining two
groups constituted the comparison group (24 individuals). The only
selection criterion for inclusion in the study was that subjects had
no prior Nightwatch participation. Other variables including age, sex,
and offense type did not play a role in determining sample selection.
Juveniles participating in VOM were selected as the comparison group
for several reasons. First, juveniles who were eligible for VOM must
have had limited previous contact with the court and no prior
adjudications that assumed no prior Nightwatch participation. Second,
juveniles who participated in VOM were not assigned to Nightwatch when
the study began. Thus, the two groups were similar in their prior
court contacts, but one group received Nightwatch contacts, while the
other did not. This study should not be generalized directly to other
sites given the small sample size, high rates of attrition, and the
fact that it was limited to only one study site.
Data for this collection were collected from
investigator administered questionnaire and official court records.
2003-122005-01

ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure.
ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software
formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR
performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

none
In Time 1, 344 juveniles were eligible and 118
participated, for a response rate of 34 percent. At Time 2 there was
an attrition rate of 34 percent (11 juveniles declined to complete a
survey or had no contact, and 29 juveniles dropped out of the study
due to a decision of the court), leaving 78 participants. At Time 3,
the attrition rate was 53 percent (16 juveniles declined to complete a
survey or had no contact, and 25 juveniles dropped out of the study
due to a decision of the court).

These data contain demographic variables on the
respondent including age, gender, race, neighborhood in which the
respondent lives, and with whom. Further information on the respondent
includes whether the respondent is in the experimental or comparison
group, prior participation in VOM or other programs, current charge
the respondent is facing, prior referrals and charges, and the number
of days the respondent has been in detention. Respondents were asked
about: levels of parental supervision (do you tell your parents where
you are, who you are with, etc.), behaviors (how many nights per week
do you spend watching TV, doing homework, joyriding, hanging out,
etc.), moral views (how wrong is it to skip school, lie to your
parents, break curfew, cause property damage, etc.),severity of
punishments (how bad would it be to have to write a book report, pick
up trash, or receive detention), and the reactions of others (parents,
friends, teachers, and employers) to the respondent's behavior.
Respondents were also asked how likely they were to break the law, how
guilty they would feel if they were not caught, and the likelihood of
being caught. To develop an impulse index, respondents were asked to
rate their behavior and agree or disagree with the following: I act on
impulse, I act on the spur of the moment, I consider consequences, I
do not act hastily, I do things I regret later, and I act first, think
later. Respondents were also asked to self-report any incidences of
delinquency (skipping school, breaking curfew, vandalism, etc.) and
victimization (assault, robbery, etc.). Finally, there are variables
related to the Nightwatch program including the number of Nightwatch
visits, if the juvenile was home during the visit, the number of
sanctions and rewards received, the type of sanction and if it was
completed on time, and the number of doublebacks (extra visits for
juveniles suspected of leaving the house after the initial check).

ICPSR

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.

The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no
responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social RearchICPSRAnn ArborMIhttp://www.icpsr.umich.edu/help@icpsr.umich.eduUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of JusticeStudyUnit04302

This data collection provides data for the outcomes
evaluation. Data from the process evaluation are not included.